I Want Lew Rockwell to Be Libertarian on Immigration

A recent editorial by Lew Rockwell is titled, “Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal.” But this isn’t a new look at immigration from the libertarian perspective. It’s actually a reevaluation of libertarianism, where Rockwell decides border control matters more than the principles of liberty.

He’s not alone. An amazingly high number of libertarians switch sides when immigration is the topic. “We have a welfare state,” they cry. “These teeming hordes don’t appreciate our heritage of liberty.”

With this most recent piece, Rockwell’s upped the claim. He argues that politically unwelcome immigration violates personal property rights as understood by libertarians.

Rockwell’s approach is not libertarian because it violates the primary principle of libertarianism…

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP): No one has the right to initiate force against peaceful persons. Since no one has that right, no one can delegate it to their most elite neighbors – politicians.

An important corollary to the ZAP is…

The Equal Liberty Rule:Every human being is free to do what they believe is right, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others. My rights stop at the end of your nose.

Lew defends both of these concepts in other cases. But you cannot really make an exception to a principle without losing the principle itself.

Rockwell’s claim is that national borders are just extensions of private property rights.

He argues that public property (even roads) is actually owned by the taxpayers. He writes:

[I]mmigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on… and the result is artificial demographic shifts… Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

But are public spaces really, secretly private property?

Does a man in Cincinnati, with only the deed to his house, have the right to stop traffic in Phoenix, checking for citizenship papers? How else, other than through The State, can you assume control over property 1,000 miles away? Axiomatically, the larger the boundary you seek to protect, the bigger the “government” you’ll need.

The result of this new property rights formulation is shocking to libertarian sensibilities — people could be banned from common spaces by political majorities. An immigrant walking down a local street becomes, in Rockwell’s words, a “forced association,” even if he’s on his way to a place where he’s quite welcome.

This new, forced association principle clashes with the ZAP. To stop aliens who are walking, job seeking, purchasing, and house renting, there will be cases where someone must be prepared to shoot them. Who, amongst the libertarians, is willing to pull the first trigger?

Can your neighbors ban you from carrying guns to the shooting range because of forced association?

Can your neighbors prohibit you from buying marijuana and driving it home to smoke it?

Could your neighbors decide that, since we have government healthcare, they can regulate what you can take home from the grocery store?

Rockwell might suggest that these actions differ from immigration restriction because they violate free trade rather than free immigration. He asserts these are not the same, because there isn’t a willing recipient with immigration. Leaving aside the bald anti-humanity of the idea that our worth is based on who wants to consume our services, the fact is, the immigrant has to eat and obtain shelter too. He’s going to do that by selling his services.

In fact, the demand for migrant labor is quite high. This is why, despite the nativist bent of the Republican grassroots, the country club elite that controls the GOP keeps trying to put some kind of “amnesty” plan forward. They want to hire migrant workers.
As libertarians, we should be concerned about any method of suppressing this labor market. The State, through immigration restrictions, makes it cumbersome or impossible for businessmen to hire these workers. We abhor regulation elsewhere, viewing it as a violent intrusion into a voluntary relationship. On what principle do we suddenly shift ground? Forced association doesn’t make the grade.

Most important of all, consider the following real life example. By accident of birth, a human being was born on the other side of a line. You want to hire them to work on your property. Border control means that, if I have political power, I have the right to use violent force to terminate this relationship between consenting adults. Do you really believe that?

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, visit our guest submissions page.

Students For Liberty is a rapidly growing network of pro-liberty students from all over the world. Our mission is to educate, develop, and empower the next generation of leaders of liberty. We are the largest libertarian student organization in the world. We accomplish this through a strategy of empowerment, identifying the top student leaders and training them to be agents of change in their communities. What began as a small meeting of young leaders has become an international movement of students with almost 3,000 local student groups and 1,400+ leaders around the world with operations on every inhabited continent.

“But are public spaces really, secretly private property?”
Yes, they are. All commons were stolen from private owners at some point in history, and there is no proper libertarian answer to the question of commons other than to abolish the commons and return them to private hands.

“Leaving aside the bald anti-humanity of the idea that our worth is based on who wants to consume our services”
Bald anti-humanity or not, this is reality.

Mathew
It is hard for me to understand why the assertion that our worth is a function of the utility we generate for others to be considered anti human ( and I agree with your assertion that it is reality).
I would have thought that accumulating worth ( however you want to measure it) by generating utility for others was pro human, and elegant.

To argue for increased immigration controls is to argue (however reluctantly) for a larger, more powerful state.

Therefore, Rockwell and other defenders of increased government immigration controls are thick libertarians. They want to increase rather than decrease state power. They of course have their pragmatic reasons as all defenders of state power trot out on any issue.

In Rockwell’s case increasing state immigration controls will prevent (as he puts it) “cultural destructionism.” This is thickism, plain and simple.

Ironically in his essay about thick vs thin libertarianism, Rockwell says “Proponents of a ‘thick’ libertarianism suggest that libertarians are bound to defend something more than the nonaggression principle.” Yet that’s what Rockwell et al are doing when it comes to immigration controls. Let’s expand state power since we don’t already live in a 100% private property social order. This is ‘regime libertarianism’, devoid of principle and the compromise-for-pragmatism reasoning which the state thrives on.

To enforce increased immigration controls involves a host of horrors including religious checks, databases, as well as a surveillance apparatus to detect and root out those who might lie about their religion to avoid persecution. Ring any bells?

The solution is not to impose immigration controls to prevent hordes from accessing the welfare benefits.
The solution is to eliminate welfare benefits. Allow immigration and emigration. Folks (immigrants and native citizens alike) can either be productive members of society or they can starve.

@bfarmer Ideally, this is what would happen. But since this is politically impossible and no one seems to be willing to use the necessary anti-political means, we are left only with a choice to admit the hordes or repel the hordes.

@reece I don’t believe anything is politically impossible, only politically improbable.
Perhaps the easiest solution is to admit the hordes, and allow them to suck up the welfare benefits. Realization of the true costs of these welfare practices may help to find the political will to end them.
Remember the adage – be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

@reece Drop the statist talk. There is no “we.” You are not admitting or repelling any “hordes” (aka individuals and families). But you want the state to amass even more power in the name of security. Protect me, protect me from individuals who want to come to “my” political territory!

This is Stockholm syndrome.

It’s bad enough for a libertarian to argue in favor of maintaining the status quo, but to argue for even more state control over our lives is just sad.

The most disappointing part in your and Rockwell’s position is the implicit abdication of personal responsibility. You’re saying without the state’s protection you’re incapable of protecting your own property from other individuals (“the hordes”).

Yet simultaneously you and Cantwell fantasize about a couple percent of the population overthrowing the very institution you’re asking to keep you safe from individuals seeking a better life. That some people are violent, recent immigrant or otherwise, is no justification of even greater expansion of the most violent institution known to man.

@fowlr Your comment exemplifies the autism currently running rampant within libertarianism. I am attempting to deal with the world as it is, not as I want it to be.

Without the state’s protection, we are incapable of protecting our own properties from the hordes because the state has made this the case. The state has taken over a monopoly on protecting private property from invaders. This is terrible, but for them to monopolize this service and refuse to provide it, thus leaving private property owners in the lurch, is even worse.

I am not arguing for more state control. I am arguing that since we are apparently going to have state control, I would rather it defend my interests than attack my interests.

@reece I suspect that immigrant hordes hold no monopoly on rape and assault. In fact, I suspect that many more rapes and assaults occurred in the same time span by native citizenry. The only difference is that the immigrants received more media exposure of a biased nature, while the crimes committed by citizenry was ignored or understated.
Furthermore, I have limited sympathy for folks who choose to be victims. I’ve given a number of ladies I know pepper spray or stun guns. While I hope they never have the opportunity or reason to use them, I want them to have the ability to defend themselves should the need present itself.
You can either choose to believe that life is nasty, brutish, and short, or you can choose to believe that all people have good in them, and look for the good.
I know of a man who is an entomologist who has a YouTube channel, who emigrated from his native country because of war and a horrible economy, and moved to Turkey for a temporary job. I have never met him in person, but have had a couple email conversations with him through YouTube. He mentioned recently that he is still looking for job opportunities. Yesterday, I emailed him about a job opening for a bee research job at an American university. I am not worried that he may assault or rape locals if he moves here. While I realize that possibility exists, I don’t believe he poses any more risk than an average guy in a bar on Saturday night. (And to be honest, I suspect that he poses less risk than your typical bar patron.)

@bfarmer It is possible that many more rapes and assaults occurred in the same time span by native citizenry, but they also outnumber the migrant hordes. Per capita statistics are necessary to evaluate this properly.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who choose to be victims, but some people are denied the ability to make that choice by governments that have disarmed them. The reality is that life is nasty, brutish, and short unless appropriate measures are taken to make it be otherwise.

@reece Matthew — the more you try to rationalize your unlibertarian position on this issue, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

“I am attempting to deal with the world as it is, not as I want it to be.” Ah, really? For somebody who claims to be a libertarian anarchist and is constantly posting Cantwell articles about overthrowing the government, you’re clearly focused on how you want the world to be. Besides there’s not much point in libertarian writing if you’re *not* going to point out how the world ought to be.

“Without the state’s protection, we are incapable of protecting our own properties from the hordes because the state has made this the case.”
Wow, talked about whipped dog mentality. The US has more privately owned guns than any political territory on the planet, but you claim you need the government to keep you safe from immigrants.

Not only that, you constantly link to Cantwell’s nutty article claiming a couple percent of the population is all that’s needed to overthrow the government. This means you perceive would-be poor immigrants as a more powerful and menacing threat than the entire police state and military-industrial complex. Yes, time to roll over and beg Uncle Sam to protect you from the mongrel hordes!

“The state has taken over a monopoly on protecting private property from invaders.”
Huh? The US not only has hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms. There are mountains of private alarm and security companies, bodyguard services, neighborhood watch programs, nonlethal weapons like stun guns and pepper spray, and next-generation solutions like Peacekeeper. Compared to other political territories, Americans are better equipped by the market to protect themselves from violent individuals than practically anywhere else on the planet.

“I am not arguing for more state control.”
Yes, you are. Anybody who wants religion based immigration controls is arguing for more state control. And even if you weren’t, you’d be arguing for maintaining the status quo, which is pathetic for a supposed libertarian anarchist. Let me guess…you want the Fed to stick around too so that interest rates and the dollar don’t fluctuate too much?

“I am arguing that since we are apparently going to have state control, I would rather it defend my interests than attack my interests.”

Using this unprincipled reasoning, one can rationalize any government control as long as it benefits you personally. I suppose you’d be for bank bailouts as long as you got some of the money? Perhaps you’d work for the TSA or DHS as long as the salary and benefits were good enough? Certainly you wouldn’t oppose others’ support for government programs that benefit their interests, would you? After all we live under a big bad government, so we might as well fall in line at whatever trough benefits us.

@fowlr Murray — The more you autistically fail to understand nuance, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

There is no point in libertarian writing if one is only going to point out how the world ought to be while completely ignoring how the world is and failing to provide any sort of path from here to there. There is also no point in trying to figure out the best future if we ignore imminent dangers and get ourselves killed in the present.

While it is true that the American people could overthrow the government and repel the hordes with less than their current firepower, they apparently lack the will to do so. As such, the choices are down to government protection from the hordes or invasion. As much as I hate it, it is what it is. Would-be poor immigrants are a more powerful and menacing threat than the entire police state and military-industrial complex if said police state and military-industrial complex sit back and do nothing about it.

I am not arguing for maintaining the status quo as the best possible option. I am arguing that maintaining the status quo is better than a government-engineered demographic displacement of secular first-world people with theocratic third-world people. As for the Fed, I support free banking but having the Fed is better than allowing Congress critters or Presidents to have direct control over interest rates.

As soon as a state is involved, we are done with principles because a state is an inherent violation of principles. With that kind of gun in the room, one must simply do what is necessary to avoid getting shot. This is yet another reason why we must abolish the state.

@reece >but some people are denied the ability to make that choice by governments that have disarmed them.

I live in Ohio. Here in Ohio, citizens can legally open carry weapons (unconcealed) with no permits required. It’s not uncommon to see people open carrying pistols on their hip. I know store owners and cashiers who keep a firearm under the counter. (When I worked midnight shift at a gas station in my late teens, I kept a pistol under the counter, and the cops knew it.) If folks want to carry a concealed weapon, Ohio allows them to do so if they get a permit. (Personally, I don’t think a permit should be required.) I know many people with a license for a concealed weapon, and I know others who carry concealed weapons with no license.
Ohio also has the Castle Doctrine. If someone invades your home, and you feel threatened, you can kill them.
Ohio has no laws prohibiting folks from carrying pepper spray, mace, or stun guns.
While the police encourage citizens to call them if there is trouble, people still have the right to defend themselves. Government has not disarmed Ohio citizens.
I know a guy with a concealed license who arrived at his house to find thieves. The thieves took off in a car, and he chased them in his truck for several miles. As they went around a corner, he hit the tail end of their car, causing them to wreck. He jumped out of his truck and pulled out his pistol. He intended to shoot the thieves, but he pulled a Barney Fife and forgot to load his gun, and the guys took off on foot.
The police told the homeowner that if he would have killed the thieves, the cops would have covered for him.
One of the guys turned himself in and quickly confessed, as he was scared sh*tless because “that guy was going to kill him.” Both thieves had a lengthy criminal history.
I know this because the homeowner is a close relative of mine.
People really do have the right to defend and protect themselves, even if they are unwilling to exercise their rights to do so.